Leviticus 18:22 in the English Standard Version Bible “clearly” states: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

Traditional theology renders this verse (and others, as some claim), a clear mandate to condemn homosexuality. For if God surely considers “a man lying with another man” an “abomination,” then so should we, right?

Wrong.

The basic tenets of literary exegesis and analysis, coupled with some basic ground rules in hermeneutics, coupled with a reformed perspective on the inerrancy of Scripture, this passage (and perhaps four others), shows quite a different story.

Before we continue, it must be understood that this is a response to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that California’s Proposition 8, which rescinded marriage equality, was unconstitutional in a ruling yesterday.

Moving along, I challenge anyone with a basic knowledge of Scripture to do a search of the word “abomination” (in English; we’ll get to Hebrew later) in the Torah (first five books of the Bible and the “Law” to Jews) and see what results are.

Critically thinking, if one thing is an “abomination” to God, are there other things? Seemingly, there are.

Deuteronomy 22:5 says that exchanging coats between guys and girls is an abomination. Deuteronomy 17:1 says that if you sacrifice a sheep that has a “blemish” (like a cyst or other things), it’s an abomination. In addition Deuteronomy 25:16 says anyone who is dishonest is an abomination to the Lord. Lastly (my favorite) Deuteronomy 7:25 says if anyone brings an “abomination” into your house – abomination, meaning a conquered people group – you should detest it.

In Hebrew, the word for “abomination,” according to Strong’s Hebrew and Greek concordances, is toebah. This word is associated with a number of other miscellaneous things throughout the Old Testament. Of those is having sex with a woman during her period (Leviticus 18:19, 26-30); pride (Proverbs 6:17 and 16:5); and remarriage to a first spouse succeeding another marriage and divorce (Deuteronomy 24:4).

In addition, shaqats, another word that means “abomination,” is associated with abomination as well. This word is used twice in the Old Testament and the one I would like to highlight is eating or even touching “unclean” animals in Leviticus 11:11 and 20:25.

Sorry bacon lovers, but pigs, according to the Jewish Law, are “unclean.”

“Clear” isn’t exactly a word I would like to use when it comes to claiming what God considers an abomination. If we are taking the Good Word for what it says (including Paul for that matter), the “homosexuality rule” that we opened with must be placed in the same pile with the other abominations that the Old Testament is chock-full of.

Especially if you take Paul for what he says and means in Galatians 2:21 (yes, in context), which states: “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law (all of the above, and others, totalling 613), then Christ died for no purpose.”

That’s right, brothers and sisters, Paul just said that if righteousness (aka justification) came through the Mosaic Law (which was its purpose), then Jesus died for nothing!

And I agree, there are other passages where this so-called issue of homosexuality is somewhat addressed. I am willing to engage in that discussion later, along with the inerrancy of Scripture as well.

Tying this with yesterday’s monumental events, as the Church certainly has – as have those Westboro Baptist “God-Hates-Fags” people that most contemporary Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants or even Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodoxy don’t consider to be part of Christianity – what is clear is this: Turning to Scripture for an ethic that is barely present is a fallacy. The rules of conversion do not apply when trying to apply laws thousands of years old that aren’t even applicable to Christians to public policy. Trying to put them there is also a fallacy.

But “love the sinner, hate the sin,” right?

Wrong again.

Where is the “love of Christ” in judging other people’s definition of love? Can we, as claimed Christians, seriously admit that we know it all when it comes to God’s definition of anything? No wonder the world has labeled us as “intolerant.”

If Christians had rallied together and opposed Proposition 8 four years ago, under the banner of “We will work with you even if we believe it’s wrong” mantra, how more open would gays and lesbians be to the Gospel?

Even if we hate the so-called sin, there is a person to love. And on that note, if any Christian can look someone who claims to be homosexual in the eyes and tell them that he/she is incapable of love for whatever reason, I question the love of Christ in their heart.

Christians, we have to be honest with what our Bibles actually say and what they mean for us. If anything at all, follow the aforesaid “wrong” principle: Hate the “sin,” love the sinner. Because love, as Jesus demonstrated, meant meeting despised people, outcasts even, at dirt-level; understanding them and looking past whatever they’ve done wrong.

To miss that completely misses Jesus’ example altogether.